Skip to main content

View Post [edit]

Poster: jonc Date: Jun 19, 2009 9:09am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: divx and avi

"Worse, it is proprietary."

I have to agree with that. DivX is widely supported at this time, and there's generally no disputing the quality. But what happens when DivX, Inc. stops doing business? There will be superior codecs replacing it, if there aren't already, and who would be motivated to continue its development and support? There will probably be hundreds of videos in these archives that are virtually worthless.

Hopefully, the OGG video codec will address this.

This post was modified by jonc on 2009-06-19 16:09:11

Reply [edit]

Poster: billbarstad Date: Jun 19, 2009 9:45am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: divx and avi

I have no love of the DivX format, but the AVI format doesn't support modern B-frame compression, it requires hacks to support subtitles, which can break compatibility, and it only uses square pixels, which means movie frames appear stretched when they are played back.

Probably the only reason AVI is still around is because of its use on file-sharing sites and the preponderance of the Windows OS.

Maybe both container formats will disappear some day (I sure hope Windows does too). If a file type becomes obsolete, IA can re-encode files to another format.

For now, I prefer MPEG-4 files, but sometimes DivX is my only option.

Reply [edit]

Poster: elmagno Date: Jun 19, 2009 8:00pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: divx and avi

I prefer mp4 files rendered with x264. This is an up to date combination that is also very efficient. I read the other day that it takes about 15 coal-fired power plants to power the internet. In this regard an x264 file of, say, 500mb has all the quality of a 700mb divx file. Convert the 500 and 700 megabytes to pounds or tons and it's easy to see the absolute savings--with no sacrifice of quality.

This post was modified by elmagno on 2009-06-20 02:55:37

This post was modified by elmagno on 2009-06-20 03:00:19